ACLU sues state police

[Boz/BoFan 0]

You dont show ID, misdemeanor, period. Whats so focking hard to understand about that? And where are these clowns the other thousand times a day this happens to americans? Oh and lets not forget.......

 

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will slowly adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

 

Sounds like something the founder of the ACLU would say.

 

 

 

ACLU sues state police

 

01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, January 9, 2007

 

By Karen Lee Ziner

 

Journal Staff Writer

 

PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against the state police, alleging racial profiling and violation of the constitutional rights of 14 Guatemalan nationals during a July traffic stop that led to their detention by immigration officials.

 

Steven Brown, director of the Rhode Island affiliate, yesterday noted the unusual nature of the lawsuit filed by ACLU volunteer attorney V. Edward Formisano.

 

“It’s very rare for individuals like these plaintiffs to be willing to step forward and challenge questionable police practices that they’ve been subject to,” said Brown.

 

“The citizenship status of the plaintiffs is really irrelevant to this lawsuit. These were individuals who were in a van that was stopped for a minor traffic violation. The question is whether police have a right to detain individuals for no other reason than the way they look …”

 

Said Brown, “The law generally prohibits racial profiling on the highways. It prohibits stopping or searching vehicles based on the person’s race or ethnicity, all of which we think were present in this case. It also specifically bars police officers from detaining individuals in cars longer than necessary to address the initial traffic violation. From our perspective, that restriction was clearly violated in this case.”

 

The lawsuit names the State of Rhode Island, the state police, state police Supt. Steven M. Pare and Trooper Thomas Chabot individually; and a “Jane Doe” state trooper whose identity the ACLU was unable to establish.

 

State police spokesman Maj. Steven G. O’Donnell said yesterday, “We respect the ACLU’s right to file any lawsuit but we have reviewed this matter at length and continue to support Trooper Chabot’s actions. We also respect the court process and we’ll wait and see how the court rules” before making any comment.

 

The allegations stem from a traffic stop by Chabot early on July 11 on Route 95 in Richmond.

 

According to the lawsuit, Chabot pulled over a van operated by Carlos A. Tamup because Tamup had failed to use his turn signal when changing lanes.

 

The lawsuit alleges that Chabot first confirmed that Tamup’s license and registration were valid and that he had no criminal record.

 

“Chabot nonetheless proceeded to open the doors of the vehicle, and by utilizing Tamup as a translator, requested all the passengers to also provide identification,” according to an ACLU synopsis of the case. When some failed to do so, Chabot then asked them to produce documents “demonstrating their U.S. citizenship.”

 

When none of the 14 were able to do so, Chabot advised them that they would all be escorted to the federal Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Providence.

 

Then, the lawsuit states, Chabot instructed Tamup, the driver, that he was responsible for the vehicle’s passengers, and that if any passenger attempted to escape from the van en route to Providence, that passenger would be “shot.”

 

Chabot and the trooper identified only as “Jane Doe,” then escorted the group to the Providence ICE office.

 

Formisano, the ACLU lawyer, is seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the constitutional rights of the driver and his passengers, and demands punitive and compensatory damages on behalf of the 11 plaintiffs. Besides Tamup, the plaintiffs are: Astrid G. Estrada, Wendy M. Estrada, Guilfredo E. Munoz, Jose A. Aquino, Cruz F. Rivera, Jose Burgos, Abelino M. Urizar, Israel Tebalan, Rolando Noriega, Boris R. Cruz, and Elsa Hernandez Villavicencio, all of Providence.

 

The lawsuit argues that the actions by the state police “violated the state’s Racial Profiling Prevention Act, as well as the driver’s and passengers’ constitutional rights to be free from discrimination and from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

 

The suit argues that the defendants “knew or should have known that the search, seizure and detention of the plaintiffs were without reasonable or probable cause, and were therefore unlawful under the circumstances.”

 

The lawsuit also steps into the heart of a national controversy over whether local police should be involved in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

 

Brown said, “To their credit, many police departments across the country have rejected the opportunity to enforce those laws for a number of reasons. I think first they recognize they don’t have the expertise with these laws … also, that doing so undermines trust in the communities that they serve. People in immigrant communities are going to think twice before they contact police if they’ve been victims of a crime, if they think they’ll be the ones who end up on trial.”

 

The van stop also rattled Rhode Island civil rights advocates, who during a public forum this summer and a subsequent news conference, criticized state police Superintendent Pare’s response to the incident. Pare ordered an internal review after the ACLU filed a complaint. That investigation cleared Chabot; Pare stated that Chabot acted “professionally and appropriately,” and denied racial profiling by the trooper.

 

The state police response to the first complaint “expressed complete satisfaction with the way the stop and detention occurred, which led to this lawsuit,” said Brown.

[Mungwater 597]

What I don't understand is that the cop had a hunch, and his hunch appears to be correct.

 

Reminds me of a situation about a year ago in memorial park here in houston. I finished up my run and was walking back to my car, a cop stopped me and said that there is a report of someone who matches my description selling drugs.

 

Can I see some ID?

 

sure..

 

Can I search your car/person?

 

sure go ahead..

 

I had nothing to hide, so I let them.

 

The cop had a suspicion that I was the person, and I had no reason not to comply. They were criminals, and the cop busted them, I don't see the big deal.

[edjr 6,602]

Does anyone know if it's a crime to be here illegally?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Does anyone know if it's a crime to be here illegally?

 

Depends on who you ask. The socialist liberals will say no. The rest of America who hold down decent jobs and support a family will say yes.

[Toro 1]

I don't mind the lawsuit at all. If the ACLU wants to challenge the law, then that is fine with me and to be honest, EVERY American should always be open and willing to allow anyone to challenge any of the laws that might violate our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

 

That being said, the American taxpayer should not have to pay for the 100's and 1000's of lawsuits put forth by lawyers who file a lawsuit and lose. Some of these lawsuits have merit and should be taken forward, but for every one that actually has merit, there are 5 without any merit that are used for extortion purposes in civil trials.

 

You bring a lawsuit and win, that's fine. You lose, you pay court costs and attorney's fees.

[davebg 0]

I see the police ask passengers in vehicles for ID all the time on Cops. How come the ACLU doesn't come to the rescue of racially profiled trailer trash?

If "illegal immigrant" now qualifies as a race, then so should "trailer trash" IMO.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I don't mind the lawsuit at all. If the ACLU wants to challenge the law, then that is fine with me and to be honest, EVERY American should always be open and willing to allow anyone to challenge any of the laws that might violate our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

 

That being said, the American taxpayer should not have to pay for the 100's and 1000's of lawsuits put forth by lawyers who file a lawsuit and lose. Some of these lawsuits have merit and should be taken forward, but for every one that actually has merit, there are 5 without any merit that are used for extortion purposes in civil trials.

 

You bring a lawsuit and win, that's fine. You lose, you pay court costs and attorney's fees.

 

I agree. The ACLU pays nothing so they can file for any reason they wish, knowing fully that the defendants will have to pay outrageous fees to battle these frivilous cases which like you said, becomes extortion. But look at the cases the ACLU takes on, their motives are blatantly focking obvious. You think they would rush in to represent say Blake Wentworth, a white male in his 30's pulling in 70k a year? Never. Its just illegals, NAMBLA, Horse fockers or any other scourge of hummanity. They dont believe in protecting anyones rights, they want only to be a lightning rod to thrust their agenda in the public's faces.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

bump to expose the fagggot azz liberal socialists and their leader Cindy She-man.

[What is the deal? 1]

The ACLU is the worse thing for America since the Articles of Confederation

[Mudhounds 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ACLU stands for AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union. It's not the GCLU. These are not Americans the ACLU is trying to protect.

 

Bogus bogus bogus!

 

Mud

[Cdub100 3,925]

I wish I lived in communist Russia.

To each his own

[DanXIII 8]

The ACLU pays nothing

 

The proof of your utter cluelessness lies in this phrase.

[GobbleDog 997]

Cops should be challenged when they abuse authority. I hope the ACLU wins big.

[gocolts 300]

Its just illegals, NAMBLA, Horse fockers or any other scourge of hummanity. They dont believe in protecting anyones rights, they want only to be a lightning rod to thrust their agenda in the public's faces.

 

 

You can bet if the ACLU is "Defending" someone, then more than likely, that someone is a POS violent criminal or some twisted sicko pervert, and God only knows who else they defend, for freakin free, that we haven't heard about yet.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

The proof of your utter cluelessness lies in this phrase.

 

Hey Suzy, they are a non-profit. And since 3% of their income comes from court victories its pretty safe to assume they dont pay for sh!t and can pretty much extort anyone they see fit.

You should try hormone therapy, a few testosterone shots here and there, they'll drop.

[paulinstl 296]

4th Ammendment:

 

The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.

[redtodd 7]

I agree. The ACLU pays nothing so they can file for any reason they wish, knowing fully that the defendants will have to pay outrageous fees to battle these frivilous cases which like you said, becomes extortion. But look at the cases the ACLU takes on, their motives are blatantly focking obvious. You think they would rush in to represent say Blake Wentworth, a white male in his 30's pulling in 70k a year? Never. Its just illegals, NAMBLA, Horse fockers or any other scourge of hummanity. They dont believe in protecting anyones rights, they want only to be a lightning rod to thrust their agenda in the public's faces.

 

edjr?

[paulinstl 296]

I agree. The ACLU pays nothing so they can file for any reason they wish, knowing fully that the defendants will have to pay outrageous fees to battle these frivilous cases which like you said, becomes extortion. But look at the cases the ACLU takes on, their motives are blatantly focking obvious. You think they would rush in to represent say Blake Wentworth, a white male in his 30's pulling in 70k a year? Never. Its just illegals, NAMBLA, Horse fockers or any other scourge of hummanity. They dont believe in protecting anyones rights, they want only to be a lightning rod to thrust their agenda in the public's faces.

 

1. They offered to aid Rush Limabugh.

 

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (search) probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union (search) to become one of his staunch supporters.

 

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

 

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

 

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

 

The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged "doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

 

And as for this, I guess we know whose alias you are:

 

Its just illegals, NAMBLA, Horse fockers or any other scourge of hummanity. They dont believe in protecting anyones rights, they want only to be a lightning rod to thrust their agenda in the public's faces.

 

 

jets24 Jan 5 2007, 12:38 PM Post #15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoken like a true lib. I wouldn't call those liberal, Nambla defending scumbags even if my rights were being violated. So fock off very much.

 

 

Nice alias!

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

4th Ammendment:

The driver should not have given permission to check in the back. He basically waived that right.

[paulinstl 296]

The driver should not have given permission to check in the back. He basically waived that right.

 

 

In the story above, it states the Trooper opened the doors. I didn't see anything about the driver giving consent. Did I miss something?

[Riddlen 1]

In the story above, it states the Trooper opened the doors. I didn't see anything about the driver giving consent. Did I miss something?

14 guys? maybe they were violating seatbelt laws.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

In the story above, it states the Trooper opened the doors. I didn't see anything about the driver giving consent. Did I miss something?

My mistake, I thought I had read a different account of the same story which stated the driver allowed the doors to be opened. It is certainly not in the story above.

[paulinstl 296]

My mistake, I thought I had read a different account of the same story which stated the driver allowed the doors to be opened. It is certainly not in the story above.

 

 

No sweat, it just made me wonder if my reading skills were going to shite like some other people here.

 

[GobbleDog 997]

The driver should not have given permission to check in the back. He basically waived that right.

 

Shockingly, cops genearlly don't take it very well when they are refused permission to search.

 

Their next step is to call a K-9 unit and if the K-9 barks/yelps/ or basically does anything, the cops can search without permission.

[davebg 0]

In the story above, it states the Trooper opened the doors. I didn't see anything about the driver giving consent. Did I miss something?

I'd be interested to hear/read the trooper's account of the incident (the one in the story is the ACLU's version of events and, like most of the time, there are two sides to every story.)

 

Frankly, I'd be very suprised if a state trooper did what was alleged and began to search the vehicle w/out first asking and receiving permission from the driver. Any veteran police officer (or first year criminal justice student) knows that any evidence of wrongdoing would be thrown out in such a situation.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Probable cause to search, large area of officer discretion under this. Officer at passenger window, see's 14 foreign men in the back. Thats 14. Unless they are all wearing football gear and on the way to a stadium, somethings up. So 14 obviously foreign men and the driver cannot say what they are doing. Once again, 14 men in a van post 9/11 is cause enough alone to throw out this bullsh!t lawsuit. And what do you know, all 14 are hear illegally.

Does this not bother anyone how people have reacted to this? Yes i know everyone thinks they are trial lawyers now because they've seen a few episodes of LA law, but this officer 20 years ago would have been commended and gone right back to work. Now 50% of americans side with the illegals and want to crucify the cop. Amazing.

 

As far as Rush being helped by the ACLU, you owe me a coke and a new computer monitor. If you dont think they saw it as a perfect opportunity to "Legitimize" their organization making an offer to a very public conservative, who pulls in 100 million a year, you are focking nuts. Rush could buy the ACLU 100 times over, its very obvious to most people that this was a ploy.

[paulinstl 296]

 

 

As far as Rush being helped by the ACLU, you owe me a coke and a new computer monitor. If you dont think they saw it as a perfect opportunity to "Legitimize" their organization making an offer to a very public conservative, who pulls in 100 million a year, you are focking nuts. Rush could buy the ACLU 100 times over, its very obvious to most people that this was a ploy.

 

I assume that you've researched every case brought forth by the ACLU and aren't just reacting to the propaganda being spewed by right wing media too.

 

Here's one right up your conservative alley. ACLU sues school for not allowing a student to sing a "religious" song at a talent show.

 

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/27673prs20061212.html

 

Bunch of God-hating Liberals for sure.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I assume that you've researched every case brought forth by the ACLU and aren't just reacting to the propaganda being spewed by right wing media too.

 

Here's one right up your conservative alley. ACLU sues school for not allowing a student to sing a "religious" song at a talent show.

 

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/27673prs20061212.html

 

Bunch of God-hating Liberals for sure.

 

Fock religion, im an atheist and by no means a conservative, i just happen to know my enemy. Ivory tower libs.

[Frank M 181]

Fock religion, im an atheist and by no means a conservative, i just happen to know my enemy. Ivory tower libs.

 

How convenient.

 

[gutterslut 1]

Fock religion, im an atheist and by no means a conservative, i just happen to know my enemy. Ivory tower libs.

 

 

Right, Rusty.

 

Do you have a life? Obviously not.

I love the part where you pretend to have wife and kids yet post 15 hours a day here.